Higher intelligence causes people to be left wing and reject religion as they are more highly evolved, science says. They are even less prone to adultery.

Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, holds that humans more inclined to adopt “non-traditional” behaviours are more intelligent than mere traditionals. These non-traditional behaviours yield a higher chance of survival in a rapidly changing environment.

In social evolutionary terms, non-traditional behaviour includes atheism, “liberal” political leanings and (male) monogamy, he asserts.

He claims the results of the “National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health,” which has been observing a group of subjects since 1994, support his theories.

This study found that teenage subjects who did better in IQ tests tended to have “newer” patterns of behaviour when tested 7 years later – they described themselves as “very liberal” and “not at all religious” more often, as opposed to the religious and conservative, who appeared to have lower IQs.

The difference was apparently statistically significant, but not enormous, at 11 points. It is not clear if they adjusted for the noted tendency of younger adults to be more left-leaning than older adults, but the results are apparently robust enough to survive publication in a peer-reviewed journal, albeit one for psychologists.

With such incendiary conclusions, the crucial scientific admonition that correlation does not equate to causation will doubtless be drowned out amidst glib attempts by leftists and the godless to portray their beliefs as the natural consequence of higher intelligence.

Naturally, that academics and scientists tend overwhelmingly to be left wing and irreligious has nothing to do with these scholarly and impartial scientific conclusions.

"Intellectuals" have a long history of believing all manner of stupid shit. Let's not forget that Communism, a system that any auto mechanic or bartender could have told you was utterly unworkable in the real world, was (and still is) a movement hugely appealing to intellectuals. Look at a list of prominent Communists from the 20th century, and you'll see the ranks stuffed with philosophers (Sartre and de Beauvoir), medical doctors (Che Guevara), writers (Bertold Brecht), artists (Paul Robeson) and scientists (the Rosenbergs). Most of the important figures in asian Communism (Deng Xiaopeng, Chou En-Lai, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot) were privileged young people who had been sent to get educations in France.

So, even if this story proves something (a study of political and religious attitudes amongst teenagers and college-age people does not necessarily mean anything to the populace at large), it still doesn't necessarily mean anything.

IQ tests are unreliable. If you want to be consistent, then you would have to say that black people, Hispanics, women and other minorities are less intelligent as well; they generally score lower white males.

And not only that, you would have to admit that gossip columnist Mary Vos savant (IQ 186) is more intelligent than Alber Einstein (160), Stephen Hawking (160), and nobel prize winners James Watson (119) and Francis crick (115).

IQ tests are unreliable.

oh and if liberals have the evolutionary edge, why do conservative muslims and hindus have more children than leftists and liberals? wouldn't that make them the evolutionary winners?

IQ tests are unreliable. If you want to be consistent, then you would have to say that black people, Hispanics, women and other minorities are less intelligent as well; they generally score lower white males.

And not only that, you would have to admit that gossip columnist Mary Vos savant (IQ 186) is more intelligent than Alber Einstein (160), Stephen Hawking (160), and nobel prize winners James Watson (119) and Francis crick (115).

IQ tests are unreliable. psychology is called a soft science for a reason.

oh and if liberals have the evolutionary edge, why do conservative muslims and hindus have more children than leftists and liberals? wouldn't that make them the true evolutionary winners?

1) IQ tests measure both problem solving as well as knowledge. If you can't get higher education, gets where it reflects.
2) An IQ test must be tweaked and normalized for the population whose intelligence it's supposed to be measuring. Like hell they've done that.
3) Actually being poor makes people score lower on the IQ scale because of missed chances to get better education, not the other way around.
4) Good job being a racist loser.
also 5) Other forms of intelligence (EQ, etc),punk, DO YOU KNOW THEM?

The IQ scores in this particular study were adjusted, although I admit the study is controversial. However, the tests they give in a certain country is given in the local language, and adjusted for their cultures.

But you realize that modern IQ tests are almost entirely based on problem-solving, right? It's not like in the old days where they ask things like "which woman is more beautiful" and then show a white lady as the right answer, and they don't ask things like "What is Crisco." They're normalized for age and education level to get an appropriate score, since IQ is basically a comparison of a CHILD'S mental age compared to an 'average' child of a certain age. ie, a 10 year-old child with an IQ of 120 has a mental age (developmentally) of 12. IQ scores generally don't change in adulthood, but the system works in a different way, which is sort of why the concept of the IQ is flawed (to a point).

Also, LOL. It's not racist to simply point out the results of a study in a way that offends people... I never said anything to disparage a certain race, only that people in other poor countries score poorly on IQ tests, and that the causation possibly works both ways.

On another point, Steven Hawking and Albert Einstein are renowned for their work in physics... their actual intelligence, although EXTREMELY high (160 is something like the top 99.99th percentile) isn't what made them special, it was their ability to think about the universe. I don't think you should disparage someone with a freakishly high IQ like 186 just because they're a columnist instead of a physicist.

yes, it's not racist to point that people of other races or of a different sex score lower. I don't think you're racist because of that, not at all.

But you will be seen as racist if you insist these test are reliable, period. I just wanted to point out to artefact that if he feels iq tests are reliable then he must admit black people, hispanics (like me ) and women are dumber as well.

If artefact is fine with being labeled a racist xenophobe, so be it.

"although EXTREMELY high (160 is something like the top 99.99th percentile) isn't what made them special, it was their ability to think about the universe," which is my point, IQ tests aren't the only predictor of success and brilliance.

"I don't think you should disparage someone with a freakishly high IQ like 186 just because they're a columnist instead of a physicist,"
correct, but, if you're familiar with her work you will know that Mary Vos savant work leaves a lot to desire in terms of depth. I stand to my word, even though she has a higher IQ than Einstein, she is not better than Einstein.

like I said, IQ test aren't infallible. psychology is called a soft science for a reason.

It's pretty funny looking at all these butthurt religious people who come here.

Child abuse is illegal correct? How many of you were raised in a religious or semi-religious home? I remember when I first found out about christianity I was told if I don't believe in this imaginary person, I would burn in hell for eternity.

Now, for any of you who have had similar experiences like this, were any of you scared? I was terrified myself, I would have been around 7 - 9 at the time.

Now someone please explain to me how this isn't child abuse? Telling a child they will burn forever if they refuse to believe in something that makes no sense.

Religion is disgusting and vile, exploit the innocent, yet they call it "saving ones soul" There has been so many crimes committed in the name of "god" and some of these people get away with it.

Has religion ever produced anything positive without causing more negative? Some say we have many hospitals because of religion, how many of the early hospitals treated mentally ill people and claimed they were "possessed by demons".

Dude you're a dumbass. A few nuts doesn't make a whole religion bad...they sure ruin the reputation that good people build, but that's quite the narrow-minded hate there. Also, homosexuality was hated in Ancient Greece before only some christians(not all) hated it. All you atheist fucks just need to take one semester of a history course that covers history predating Judaism and you will find out how wrong you all are, especially about the contributions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. Then again, you might just be unreachable by reason, even more so than the idiots you're REALLY criticizing.

Well said, anon. I used to be like you; reasonable, fair, educated. Yet along the way, all this reasoning and calming down made me feel watered down and passionless. I was dead inside.

So, I threw it all out and am now considering joining or starting some radical, crazy-as-fuck religious group. What religion it is, it doesn't matter. It tends to get the point across when there are bomb threats and dead abortion doctors than in arguing with the opposition on CNN or some fucktarded forum where no one will listen to you anyway.

Well, what's there to lose? Atheists don't think I'm anything but a corpse when I'm dead. My religion would think I'll go to hell. Why not take a lot of you fuckers with me? Do I really care about the people who love you or your ideologies? Let's cut out the bullshit and see who's right after all. Quickly.

Telling a child that he'll burn in Hell for doing bad is just like telling a child to eat his broccoli or the boogey man will come and get him. It teaches the child that there are consequences for actions. Telling him that it's the right thing to do when s/he's 6 or 7 won't make him/her do anything.

And name me one Atheist or secular group that is helping people in third world countries right now without government aid. As far as I know, a quarter of aid workers in Africa are Catholic Missionaries. And that's not even scratching the surface.

I know what your problem is. You look at the minority of US citizens or Muslim terrosist who think like idiotic assholes who claim to follow their religion, and think that EVERYONE who follows what they do are just the same. It's the A=B=C argument, which never works. There are idiots who kill and hurt others to protect animals. I guess that means that everyone who fights for animal rights are evil, vile and immoral monsters, right? Under your logic, that would be so.

And people have always hated Homosexuals ever since the first gay couple existed, regardless of religious beliefs. Saying that Christianity started the hate is just a ridiculous statement to make.

"Telling a child that he'll burn in Hell for doing bad is just like telling a child to eat his broccoli or the boogey man will come and get him. It teaches the child that there are consequences for actions."

Yes, it is like telling a child that the boogeyman will come and get him. Both Hell and the boogey man are equally fictional. However they are not similar to encouraging the child to eat broccoli, as it has clear nutritional benefits that should be explained to him.

I also question the validity of terrifying children with fictional stories of dangerous home invaders or being sentenced to eternal torture.

I don't approve of lying to children at all. I don't even approve of my 5 year old nephew being suckered into the Santa myth. I was out with him the other day, and he told me he was worried because Santa Claus was watching him. He was freaked out. And because I respect his mother's opinion, I can't even tell him the truth. A child can enjoy the mythology of Santa Claus without being lied to and made to believe it is true.
Ahem. Off-topic.

A quarter of aid workers in AIDS-infested Africa being Catholic isn't necessarily a good thing, given the Catholic church's stance on condoms. I am highly suspect of any charity that elevates its personal belief system above the needs of the people it is supposedly helping. And MANY Christian charities most certainly do. For example, the Salvation Army's Christmas gift donations. Salvo volunteers go through all the donated gifts to remove any 'inappropriate material' - like Harry Potter or Chronicles of Narnia books. Screw the kids who would love to receive them, those books are the Devil's work!
Secular charities are focused solely on the welfare of those they help. And atheists who volunteer do so purely because they want to help, not because the expect some seat in Heaven for doing it.

Even though Atheist aid groups do help, they are just as corruptible as religious groups for one reason: cynicism. People will always look at any bad thing that happens, and then use that to say that it is all bad. Even if the good outweighs the bad, people will still try to look for bad things to say about people or groups. Whether someone is religious or not, in the end, has nothing to do with how a person or group thinks.

I have had 12 years of my childhood ruined by, constant non-stop bullying, I have been extremly suicidal for a large portion of my life

I don't drink, smoke or do drugs, I'm a very polite and nice person and I have found praying to God to be extremly helpful to my life, after many years of thinking I came to the conclustion the goal is to be close to God, not the church.

Of course there are very nice people in most churchs if you don't go to the bible bashing othodox ones.

I have extremly good grades considering I was bullied all the way though school, I have learnt to combind my religion with science, and I love science it solves so many problems.

Only to have my believes shoved in my face and to be told I'm an idiot/retard who is less intelligent that everyone else.

Thanks, thanks a lot, you really made me feel better about myself, you really added to the science/religion debate, but allow me to put this foward, irregular numbers don't make sense, but their always true, shaming lanuage isn't an arguement, its to detract from it and change the subject.

And also, when we take god out of the equation, the only thing which is important, is yourself.

But I guess i'm too retarded to make an intelligent answer and should go back to isolation.

everyone is stupid. Religious people are willing to admit that. Atheists, however, make up the rules of Science to make themselves feel better and to justify their own existences.

Atheists have unwarranted self-importance because they believe in God less than everyone else. Other than that, they have produced nothing else other than individuals with big heads filled with hot air.

Religious people, at least, have built schools, hospitals and orphanages. They didn't need a proof of a God to do those things. They sponsored science and contributed to the control of population in terms of numbers and ideas through Holy Wars. That hasn't changed for the last few thousand years. I don't think it'll change anytime soon.

See, how stupid I'm acting? Now look at a pretentious Atheist and see how he claims how smart he is. On the Internet. With no proof at all.

TL;DR- Atheists should be scrutinized more because they have no excuse to be stupid.

"Naturally, that academics and scientists tend overwhelmingly to be left wing and irreligious has nothing to do with these scholarly and impartial scientific conclusions."

What an unhappy comment, when even if we exclude the possibility that academics and scientists are actually people with higher IQ than the average, your text also failed to mention that the supposed reasons behind such conclusions would it be that more inteligent people are more likely to question the traditions. Basically, instead "be smart is to be atheist, monogamic, etc", a consequence of a higher intelligence it's to question the traditions before decide to follow them or not. Once you question it, you do are prone to stop follow it, but it is not a necessary conclusion and the fact that the word "prone" was used exemplify this uncertainty.

It is not the first time that I see Sankaku Complex post crippled news from somewhere trying to get a very biased opinion because the responsible to post it in here just didn't like what he saw in the original. That's no way to act to someone who wishes to criticize someone else partiality... even if a the critic is subtle.

lol It only survived to publication because it said exactly what they like to hear, otherwise they might never take the word of a psychologist of any variety.
Also, its easy to say that religious people are stupid when the majority of people are affiliated with some religion and the majority is stupid.

Still, by the Schrobby school of logic, some other stupid shit should be true as well...For instance, opinion = fact, fact = the truth, therefore opinion = the truth. That said, your logic is flawed because the people you say believe in pure bullshit are merely expressing their opinions and personal truths. QED bitch...don't spout baseless, nonsensical bullshit.

Still IMO, none of the "reasonable" atheists are willing to accept reason in actuality. You guys are just as stubborn as the people you hate (and the reason you hate them is probably something common among theists and atheists alike). Opinion really does equate to fact for you guys just as much as it does for them so leave them alone and shut the fuck up.

Is that george bush? thank god he's not a president anymore a murdering scum who started a war by this father and son also when he's a texas governor he had executed 150+ people don't think clemency is his vocabulary hope their son won't become future US president, Anybody but them(bush clan)!

I don't believe this should be translated to political leftwing and rightwing. (northwest europe here). Except for the name christian there is no religion left in our right wing parties. You also can't say that leftist is more intelligent in politics here because a lot of people with brains voted to the more realstic rightwing in response of the unrealistic leftwing politicians believing in utopias.
Fanatics or extremists can either be narrow minded left or right or religious or whatever.

So, if you really want to make two groups, it would probably be better to say broad-minded vs narrow minded people.

If the comment comes from non-religious person, it will be logical, straightforward, and most likely offensive towards those that are religious.

If the comment comes from a religious person, it will be an answer that usual follows the "My belief in -religion- is unexplainable, but true" kind of deal.

I just want to say, fuck you both. You can be as logical as you want. You can be as faithful as you want. Guess what? Both haven't proven the existence or non-existence of god. Just shut the hell up. If you express your opinion on the internet, it will most likely be because you want to, and I use this lightly, convert people into believe what you believe. If you really want to convert people into believing or disbelieving religion, then prove god does or doesn't exist. You can SAY religion caused wars. You can SAY religion gave hope to the unfortunate. But ultimately, it's because humans are the most conforming beings on this planet. Whether conforming is the right thing or not, you have to admit that shit only gets more popular because it already is popular.

Tell me something. If you created free-willed "objects", what would you do with them? Would you be self centered and make them suck your cock every single fucking day? Or would you be carefree and just watch them suck each others cocks? Neither of these is the "right" answer. Just watch the fucking news and look at how many fucked up people there are in this world. God could possibly do something self centered. God could also be a curious person who decided to put us on a giant sphere.

If you take the word "cock" and "shit" literally, then suck your own cock and eat shit you dumb fuck of a human being.

Liberals are not leftits, do you heard of "neoliberalism"? And i'm not a fukken leftitst and i i'm not religious nor believe in god. And i don't believe the commies (real commies) in my place are more intelligent than me.